If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are currently viewing our forums as a GUEST.

This allows you to read, but not participate in our discussions.

This also prevents you from downloading attachments and seeing some of our specialized sub-forums.

Registration is free and painless and requires absolutely no personal information other than a valid email address.

You can register for our history forums here. [this reminder disappears once you are registered]

The PM does, not The Queen . The Queen does what the PM tells her to do . The Queen has the right to be informed, to warn, to encourage, but not to refuse a request ( = an order ) from the PM . But ,if the Cabinet is divided and the PM has no authority,the PM can not prorogue Parliament , otherwise the Cabinet collapses and the PM is no longer PM .
Why did May not prorogue Parliament ? Because she could not . And why should her successor be able to do what May could not do ?The hostility of the establishment to Brexit is as strong as in 2016 . Nothing has changed .

You keep saying that but it is factually incorrect. The Queen has the authority to Prorogue Parliament. While she only does so at the request of the PM the PM cannot compel her to do so.
The PM does not need to agreement of their cabinet in order to make the request.

"The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
"Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

Comment

Technically the PM does not request but advices, theoretically HM is at liberty not to take that advice but always does. The dilemma is what if the advice is to do something unconstitutional?

Indeed. The PM advised the Queen or the PM requests the Queen... same thing really.
The question is can the request be subject to a Judicial Review before the Queen acts on it, reducing the potential to embroil her directly in a constitutional crisis. Details here.

"The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
"Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

Comment

Maybe there's a language barrier here or something but I'll try to explain this again. If Parliament is Prorogued then it is not sitting. It is not is session. There is nobody there. There are no votes taken. There are no speeches given. The Chamber is empty. The shop is closed. The PM's are off doing something else. The door is locked. Nobody is home. Got it?

In the absence of any action by Parliament then a no deal Brexit happens on the 31st of October.

No, the Queen, at the request of the Prime Minister and with the Advice of the Privy Council, Prorogues Parliament. Parliament has no say in where it is Prorogued. None. Nada. Zip. Not a jot.

These are facts, not opinions.

Do you understand?

1 Parliament will not be remain prorogued for ever and than Parliament will annul Brexit .
2 Wrong : no PM can prorogue Parliament ( = preventing Parliament to sit ) against the will of Parliament . If he does this, he will not remain PM for an other day .
Without a majority in Parliament, a PM can do nothing .
Balfour resigned because he had no longer a majority in the Commons, Asquith also, Lloyd George also, Bonar Law also,Chamberlain, Eden, Thatcher idem . The last one (for the time being ) is May.
Prorogation means governing without and against Parliament .
It can't be done. it is dictatorship.
Parliament was not prorogued by May, because she couldn't do it , Why should her successor be able to do what she could not do ?

Balfour resigned because he had no longer a majority in the Commons, Asquith also, Lloyd George also, Bonar Law also,Chamberlain, Eden, Thatcher idem . The last one (for the time being ) is May.
Prorogation means governing without and against Parliament .
It can't be done. it is dictatorship.
Parliament was not prorogued by May, because she couldn't do it , Why should her successor be able to do what she could not do ?

This isn't about having a majority within Parliament. It is about ending a particular session of Parliament so they cannot prevent something which would otherwise happen.

Note: Prorogation is not the same as dissolving Parliament as the MP's still hold their seats and an election is not called. It is the ending of a particular session of Parliament. Sessions in the UK Parliament traditionally ran from November to November but this has changed to run from Spring to Spring.

"The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
"Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

Comment

I see that you fail to answer why May did not a prorogation of Parliament .And also why the new PM could do what May could not do .

Really, is that the best you can do?

It seems that you are unaware of the debate around this issue. That lack of knowledge makes you look foolish.
May didn't Prorogue Parliament because she was trying to get the Bill she agreed with the EU through Parliament. She didn't want a no deal Brexit so why on earth would she cause one by requesting that the Queen Prorogue Parliament?
I suspect that she is also a democrat who respects the rights of parliament and didn't want to effectively usurp it's authority, given that Brexit was all about giving power back to the UK Parliament.
I hope the irony of this isn't lost on the Little-englanders.

Can you now accept that you were factually incorrect in your interpretation of this matter?

"The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
"Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

Comment

It seems that you are unaware of the debate around this issue. That lack of knowledge makes you look foolish.
May didn't Prorogue Parliament because she was trying to get the Bill she agreed with the EU through Parliament. She didn't want a no deal Brexit so why on earth would she cause one by requesting that the Queen Prorogue Parliament?
I suspect that she is also a democrat who respects the rights of parliament and didn't want to effectively usurp it's authority, given that Brexit was all about giving power back to the UK Parliament.
I hope the irony of this isn't lost on the Little-englanders.

Can you now accept that you were factually incorrect in your interpretation of this matter?

There is only one real Brexit : a no Deal Brexit . All the rest is capitulation to Brussels .
And Brexit is NOT about giving power back to the UK parliament , but about giving power back to the British people . Maybe you don't know ( better : probably you don't know ) but there is a difference between Parliament (= the swamp of Whitehall ) and the British voter .

Comment

There is only one real Brexit : a no Deal Brexit . All the rest is capitulation to Brussels .
And Brexit is NOT about giving power back to the UK parliament , but about giving power back to the British people . Maybe you don't know ( better : probably you don't know ) but there is a difference between Parliament (= the swamp of Whitehall ) and the British voter .

That's just deflection and bluster.
Reply to the substantive points in the preceding posts.

"The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
"Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

Comment

but there is a difference between Parliament (= the swamp of Whitehall ) and the British voter .

Oh dear, the Leavers spent their entire time telling us we had to leave to restore the supremacyof Parliament. It was THE central plank for their entire argument. Yet here we have a devout Leave supporter saying Parliament is NOT supreme.
Handstands with no knickers?

Comment

There is only one real Brexit : a no Deal Brexit . All the rest is capitulation to but there is a difference between Parliament (= the swamp of Whitehall ) and the British voter .

I doubt you really understand democracy (or English or logic etc) but the swamp of Whitehall is the Civil Service and not Parliament. Troll off and come back when you actually understand how things work.

Comment

I doubt you really understand democracy (or English or logic etc) but the swamp of Whitehall is the Civil Service and not Parliament. Troll off and come back when you actually understand how things work.

British parliament is as corrupt as the European and US parliaments .

Comment

Oh dear, the Leavers spent their entire time telling us we had to leave to restore the supremacyof Parliament. It was THE central plank for their entire argument. Yet here we have a devout Leave supporter saying Parliament is NOT supreme.
Handstands with no knickers?

I am not a leave supporter, I can even not say how I would have voted in 20126, if I could vote .
Parliament is not supreme : parliament exists only to execute what the people want ,
And here we have the classic example of a parliament that refuses to do what its master want .
Take Philipp Hammond : he refuses no deal Brexit,which is the only real Brexit, all the rest are Brinos (Brexit in name only , at the consent of Europe ) .To mask his anti democratic behavior, he is saying that Brexit would hurt the British economy . This is maybe true, but irrelevant : democracy is not what parliament wants, but what the people wants .
The only possibility for a Brexit on October 31 is that the new PM (Boris ) is saying to the CINOs (Conservatives in name only ) : no Brexit means new elections and you will lose your seat and your bribe to the MPs of Labour or those of Farage . And Corbyn or Farahe PM means : no Ks or OBEs for you .

Comment

You obviously have no idea how the Honours System works. No Politician is going to block an opposition recommendation because if they do then they could be 'blocked' when their turn comes around.
You have no idea how much this sort of bauble is coveted. The ageing 1960s rock-stars who were once against the system are nearly all now in it. Elvis Costello is the latest to have to try and explain away his double-standards and is claiming his mother made him accept it.!